{"id":25295,"date":"2025-11-12T17:29:16","date_gmt":"2025-11-12T22:29:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/citystuff.com\/new-york\/2025\/11\/12\/housing-costs-reduce-fertility-rates\/"},"modified":"2025-11-12T17:29:17","modified_gmt":"2025-11-12T22:29:17","slug":"housing-costs-reduce-fertility-rates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citystuff.com\/new-york\/2025\/11\/12\/housing-costs-reduce-fertility-rates\/","title":{"rendered":"Housing Costs Reduce Fertility Rates"},"content":{"rendered":"

Rising Housing Costs and Fertility Rates<\/h1>\n

The relationship between housing costs and fertility rates has been a topic of interest in recent years. A new study by Benjamin K. Couillard, a doctoral candidate in economics at the University of Toronto in Canada, sheds light on this issue.<\/p>\n

Introduction to the Study<\/h2>\n

The study finds that surging housing costs are responsible for more than half of the decline in US fertility rates since the early 2000s. Couillard\u2019s analysis, which draws on US Census Bureau data to track rent patterns nationwide, concludes that, had housing costs remained flat after 1990, roughly 13 million additional children would have been born by 2020.<\/p>\n

Key Findings<\/h3>\n

A new study has found that surging housing costs are the single biggest factor behind America\u2019s declining birth rates. zimmytws \u2013 stock.adobe.com<\/span>
\nThe research attributes 51% of the total fertility decline between the 2000s and 2010s to rising rents and home prices. \u201cThat\u2019s a surprising result,\u201d Couillard said. \u201cIt suggests that housing costs are a major driver of fertility decline. Housing abundance is not just about affordability; it\u2019s about long-term demographic sustainability.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Impact of Housing Costs on Fertility<\/h4>\n

The study links the relentless rise in rents \u2014 up 149% between 1990 and 2020, according to US Bureau of Labor Statistics data \u2014 to a birth rate that has slid from 2.08 children per woman in 1990 to 1.64 by 2020. Last year, the number hit a record low of 1.599, far below the 2.1 replacement rate needed to maintain a stable population. Research by Benjamin K. Couillard at the University of Toronto estimates that rising rents and home prices accounted for 51% of the US fertility decline between the 2000s and 2010s, and that if housing costs had stayed flat since 1990, 13 million more children would have been born by 2020. Syda Productions \u2013 stock.adobe.com<\/span><\/p>\n

The Living Arrangement Model<\/h5>\n

Couillard\u2019s model separates housing costs from other economic pressures to show how affordability influences both timing and willingness to have children. \u201cIt\u2019s actually more accurate to call it a living arrangement model, where fertility is a key component,\u201d he said. People \u201ccan choose to start a family or remain with their parents, and the model captures dynamic considerations like life-cycle timing and long-term housing needs.\u201d The study argues that expensive housing not only deters families from having children but also reshapes where and how people live, with fertility decisions tied to affordability and living arrangements. alfa27 \u2013 stock.adobe.com<\/span><\/p>\n

Implications for Policy<\/h6>\n

Realtor.com senior economist Jake Krimmel, who reviewed the study, said the findings are striking for how precisely they quantify what many have long suspected. \u201cIt\u2019s one of those rare findings that\u2019s intuitive, important and has actionable implications for policy,\u201d Krimmel said. The research suggests that the fallout extends well beyond housing markets. With fewer children born each year, economists warn that a shrinking workforce could strain federal programs such as Medicare and Social Security, which depend on a large base of younger taxpayers to support retirees. Since 1990, rents have jumped 149% \u2014 far outpacing inflation \u2013while the fertility rate has fallen from 2.08 to 1.64, well below the 2.1 replacement level. Anatoliy Karlyuk \u2013 stock.adobe.com<\/span><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

The study highlights the significant impact of rising housing costs on fertility rates. Couillard argues that tackling housing costs could help reverse these demographic trends. \u201cIf we can get housing costs down, that\u2019s good for affordability, but it also helps us avoid the demographic problems that come with aging populations and declining birth rates,\u201d he said. \u201cA maximalist housing policy, one that aggressively expanded supply to prevent costs from rising, could have solved the majority of the fertility problem.\u201d Krimmel agrees that the findings point to a policy gap. \u201cTo boost fertility, we not only need a larger housing stock, but a different housing stock,\u201d he said. \u201cWe need to build more housing, particularly larger housing units and apartments that can accommodate growing young families.\u201d<\/p>\n

FAQs<\/h2>\n